Jury selected in Thomas retrial: shockingly law-abiding

Jammie Thomas-Rasset's file-sharing retrial opened this morning in Minneapolis …

The file-sharing retrial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset began at 9am Monday morning on the 15th floor of the gleaming Minnesota District Court. The first rows in the gallery were reserved for the press "and bloggers"—this is a court aware of the public interest in this case, as evidenced by a comment from Judge Michael J. Davis. "Even though we're out in provincial Minnesota," he told the out-of-state lawyers on both sides, "people are going online" to view case materials, and he wanted even banal housekeeping motions filed electronically for that reason.

The majesty of the law was present in the polished wood and flat panel TVs of the courtroom, but the retrial itself began without much in the way of "majestic" proceedings. First up was the record labels. Attorney Matt Oppenheim—who might well work a side gig as a Rick Warren body double—confirmed to the court what we learned from the RIAA last week: the recording industry did in fact manage to obtain "certified" copies of its "true and correct" copyright registration forms from the Copyright Office in Washington.

Or, as Oppenheim put it, "Now we have them on the fancy paper the Copyright Office provides."

Not that Thomas-Rasset's legal team will let the registrations go unchallenged; if they can find some way to invalidate them, the whole case falls apart, and lead attorney Kiwi Camara told the judge that he does intend to object to introducing the "new" documents at this late stage in the case. Oppenheim pointedly indicated that the "new" documents were in fact identical to those the industry has provided for years. The issue will be decided during trial.

Meet your jurors

The rest of the morning was taken up with jury selection, a tedious procedure that appeared to confirm Minnesota's reputation as a place of Lutheran virtue and hard work. Of the 19 people called up for questioning, no one admitted to having used Napster, KaZaA, or a P2P file-sharing program—and this despite the presence of several college students and recent grads.

One juror said that his friend was a heavy user and that he had downloaded a couple songs from his friend's account, but he had stopped because he "didn't want to get caught and go be... here." (Laughter from court.) Another juror also said that a friend used LimeWire and had given him "a couple CDs" filled with songs. He didn't know much about the process beyond the fact that "everybody does it." Finally, one man had a son with a new iPod who had allowed a friend to load it up with some songs from the friend's collection.

Most responses to these sorts of questions sounded like something right out of a Cupertino PR campaign, though. Apart from one guy with a Sandisk player, the personal music player of choice was the iPod. Just about everyone claimed to get their music from iTunes, though the Sandisk guy actually used Amazon instead.

When the entire jury pool was asked if they had any opinion on the recording industry, even if it was just about the price of CDs, not a single hand went up.

Throughout it all, Jammie Thomas-Rasset sat quietly, flanked by her three lawyers. The recording industry's five-person legal team sat across the courtroom wearing arguably better ties than the defense team. (The recording industry legal team includes two women, who were not wearing ties, including Jennifer Pariser of the RIAA who is overseeing the case for the trade group.)

After tossing out four jurors (the ones who had the most experience with file-sharing friends), the court was left with a 12-person jury: five men and seven women, all white, ranging in age from college students to retirees.

The judge then gave some instructions. Jurors were not to blog during the trial. They were not to put anything "on your Facebook." And under no circumstances were they to "tweet"—an expression that clearly pleased the judge, who used it three or four times.

He displayed a list of songs that Thomas-Rasset was alleged to have shared online, which was the morning's most unintentionally poignant moment. Thomas-Rasset had earlier been ordered to pay $222,000 for such aural splendors as "Pour Some Sugar on Me," "Now and Forever," "Hella Good," "Bills, Bills, Bills," and "Don't Stop Believin'"—which may have been the real crime in the first trial. (OK, "Don't Stop Believin'" may in fact have deserved the almost $10,000 in damages.)

The case, which is expected to stretch into next week, resumes this afternoon with a full jury, opening statements, and the first witnesses for the recording industry. Stay tuned for further reports.

After tossing out four jurors (the ones who had the most experience with file-sharing friends), the court was left with a 12-person jury: five men and seven women, all white, ranging in age from college students to retirees.

I can't fathom the relevance of the "all white" description. Is the author's implication that had the jury been of mixed races that it would therefore be less "law abiding" and more apt to find for the defendant? Or, is the implication that a mixed-race jury would be more law abiding and less likely to find for the defendant? Either way, I think, the implication is racist. Sad to see this sort of thing.

After tossing out four jurors (the ones who had the most experience with file-sharing friends), the court was left with a 12-person jury: five men and seven women, all white, ranging in age from college students to retirees.

I can't fathom the relevance of the "all white" description. Is the author's implication that had the jury been of mixed races that it would therefore be less "law abiding" and more apt to find for the defendant? Or, is the implication that a mixed-race jury would be more law abiding and less likely to find for the defendant? Either way, I think, the implication is racist. Sad to see this sort of thing.

It's just a description, cool it. He also said five men and seven women, because that's what they were.

After tossing out four jurors (the ones who had the most experience with file-sharing friends), the court was left with a 12-person jury: five men and seven women, all white, ranging in age from college students to retirees.

I can't fathom the relevance of the "all white" description. Is the author's implication that had the jury been of mixed races that it would therefore be less "law abiding" and more apt to find for the defendant? Or, is the implication that a mixed-race jury would be more law abiding and less likely to find for the defendant? Either way, I think, the implication is racist. Sad to see this sort of thing.

I can't fathom the relevance of the "all white" description. Is the author's implication that had the jury been of mixed races that it would therefore be less "law abiding" and more apt to find for the defendant? Or, is the implication that a mixed-race jury would be more law abiding and less likely to find for the defendant? Either way, I think, the implication is racist. Sad to see this sort of thing.

Uh, it seems like it was just a general description of the demographic of the jury. Maybe you're racist for reading in extra meaning.

I can't fathom the relevance of the "all white" description. Is the author's implication that had the jury been of mixed races that it would therefore be less "law abiding" and more apt to find for the defendant? Or, is the implication that a mixed-race jury would be more law abiding and less likely to find for the defendant?

I think the implication is that Jammie Thomas isn't white (IIRC she's Native American). Therefore, a true jury of her "peers" would tend to be something other than 100% white people.

I can't fathom the relevance of the "all white" description. Is the author's implication that had the jury been of mixed races that it would therefore be less "law abiding" and more apt to find for the defendant? Or, is the implication that a mixed-race jury would be more law abiding and less likely to find for the defendant? Either way, I think, the implication is racist. Sad to see this sort of thing.

Uh, it seems like it was just a general description of the demographic of the jury. Maybe you're racist for reading in extra meaning.

The biggest problem I have with them releasing the potential jurors that had the most experience with p2p software is that they are the ones that have a reasonable potential to understand the nuances of the technology involved and why infringement may or may not have occurred. Apparently, however, the prosecuting team does not have enough faith in either p2p users or in their own legality to where they feel they could make a compelling case to such people? I mean, if they're in the right, then this would be a great education campaign for those jurors as well as potentially offering forth a more lucid verdict from them.

I find it sad. Perhaps I'm just getting too biased against the RIAA at this point to look objectively at their decisions.

Originally posted by Cherlindrea:The biggest problem I have with them releasing the potential jurors that had the most experience with p2p software is that they are the ones that have a reasonable potential to understand the nuances of the technology involved and why infringement may or may not have occurred. Apparently, however, the prosecuting team does not have enough faith in either p2p users or in their own legality to where they feel they could make a compelling case to such people? I mean, if they're in the right, then this would be a great education campaign for those jurors as well as potentially offering forth a more lucid verdict from them.

I find it sad. Perhaps I'm just getting too biased against the RIAA at this point to look objectively at their decisions.

That's the probably entire point. The jury is supposed to primarily rely on the evidence and testimony to come to their conclusions.

If there's a civl suit brought against a city for a bridge that toppled, you can bet that they won't allow an engineering to be part of the jury (since he/she could come to a conclusion independant of the testimony and influence the other jurors).

Of the 19 people called up for questioning, no one admitted to having used Napster, KaZaA, or a P2P file-sharing program—and this despite the presence of several college students and recent grads.

Really? College students who've never used P2P file sharing? One can only hope they're clever enough to say exactly what the RIAA wanted to hear in order to get on the jury and make a convincing argument to the other jurors why THIS ENTIRE CASE IS MORONIC.

quote:

You don't put half a dozen homicidal maniacs on the jury when someone is accused of murder!

Of course not, they're all in prison

I may be wrong, but aren't convicted felons ineligible for jury duty? Someone correct me on this is necessary.

File-sharing is like masturbation. There's those that do it, and those that lie by saying they don't do it. If the RIAA statistics are true about how many folks they estimate participate in illegal file-sharing, then having a jury where no one has participated in file-sharing is a bit odd.

"the recording industry did in fact manage to obtain "certified" copies of its "true and correct" copyright registration forms from the Copyright Office in Washington."

Wait a second here...wasn't it the RIAA that objected to this very thing when the defense wanted to introduce it as part of their defense? Didn't the RIAA say they would not have enough time for discovery and then the judge said they would not have enough time for discovery?

File-sharing is like masturbation. There's those that do it, and those that lie by saying they don't do it. If the RIAA statistics are true about how many folks they estimate participate in illegal file-sharing, then having a jury where no one has participated in file-sharing is a bit odd.

My thoughts exactly. Even if general P2P usage is as low as 10% (and we all know it's much higher than that), then, statistically, the jury should have at least one person who has used P2P in the past.

Seriously, who is going to admit to using P2P to the people who are suing someone for P2P usage?

You don't put half a dozen homicidal maniacs on the jury when someone is accused of murder!

The comparison is not appropriate. Contrary to the industry's claims, the question of whether the actions are illegal are not completely settled. Harvard Law is arguing that non-commercial use and sharing falls under the fair-use exemption. The issue has not been settled.

A more appropriate comparison might be to having women vote. It was illegal, but should it be a right? Copyright is similar - a government sanctioned limited term monopoly. The question being resolved now is what rights do people have in this monopoly for non-commercial use?

Originally posted by aquasub:In addition to what others have replied to that moronic comment about race, jury demographics is often important in a trial.

Yeah, I think a saw a study (or maybe it was a John Grisham book) that white and female juries tend to give lower settlements, so that could be good news for Jammie.

The RIAA kicking out any juror who (admitted to) uses p2p isn't exactly suprising. Just like you'd kick any doctors out of a malpractice suit.

Anyone know why they need certified copies of the copyright claim, though. I thought that copyright was something that you didn't need to apply for, unlike a trademark. I guess it makes it easier to show that the labels do have copyright over the songs shared, but would it really be needed?

It's long-established that a law-breaker does not have the right to be judged by a panel of law-breakers. Same goes for a guarantee of the same (or even a proportion) makeup of race on the panel. The cases are well-known, but the names escape me at the moment; I can provide cites if someone really questions this.

To the felony-->jury duty:Yes, felony conviction = no jury duty (at least in federal court and the state where I live, I guess there could be exceptions)

Originally posted by BigLan:The RIAA kicking out any juror who (admitted to) uses p2p isn't exactly suprising. Just like you'd kick any doctors out of a malpractice suit.

Question: Where can we find out who objected to which jurors? I ask because both the prosecution and the defense have the right to disqualify jurors, and everyone is assuming the RIAA kicked these people out. Seems to me that both sides would have motivation to do so...

Originally posted by aquasub:In addition to what others have replied to that moronic comment about race, jury demographics is often important in a trial.

Yeah, I think a saw a study (or maybe it was a John Grisham book) that white and female juries tend to give lower settlements, so that could be good news for Jammie.

The RIAA kicking out any juror who (admitted to) uses p2p isn't exactly suprising. Just like you'd kick any doctors out of a malpractice suit.

A doctor would have a very biased stake in a malpractice case (insurence rates and all) - an occasional p2p user isn't nessisarily a "fuck the mafIAA" talking head from a tech news forum. It shouldn't be an immediate disqualifying factor if we are to believe the figures on its prevalence - or should women not be allowed to sit on rape trials? Should people who drink not be allowed on DUI trials? Should married people not serve when spousal abuse is the charge of the day?

File-sharing is like masturbation. There's those that do it, and those that lie by saying they don't do it. If the RIAA statistics are true about how many folks they estimate participate in illegal file-sharing, then having a jury where no one has participated in file-sharing is a bit odd.

My thoughts exactly. Even if general P2P usage is as low as 10% (and we all know it's much higher than that), then, statistically, the jury should have at least one person who has used P2P in the past.

Originally posted by aquasub:In addition to what others have replied to that moronic comment about race, jury demographics is often important in a trial.

Yeah, I think a saw a study (or maybe it was a John Grisham book) that white and female juries tend to give lower settlements, so that could be good news for Jammie.

The RIAA kicking out any juror who (admitted to) uses p2p isn't exactly suprising. Just like you'd kick any doctors out of a malpractice suit.

Anyone know why they need certified copies of the copyright claim, though. I thought that copyright was something that you didn't need to apply for, unlike a trademark. I guess it makes it easier to show that the labels do have copyright over the songs shared, but would it really be needed?

To prove that they purchased the rights from the artists, for one thing.

It's long-established that a law-breaker does not have the right to be judged by a panel of law-breakers. Same goes for a guarantee of the same (or even a proportion) makeup of race on the panel. The cases are well-known, but the names escape me at the moment; I can provide cites if someone really questions this.

To the felony-->jury duty:Yes, felony conviction = no jury duty (at least in federal court and the state where I live, I guess there could be exceptions)

No exceptions. A felony conviction costs you your right to vote, and juries are taken from voter lists.

Originally posted by Fentras:A doctor would have a very biased stake in a malpractice case (insurence rates and all) - an occasional p2p user isn't nessisarily a "fuck the mafIAA" talking head from a tech news forum. It shouldn't be an immediate disqualifying factor if we are to believe the figures on its prevalence - or should women not be allowed to sit on rape trials? Should people who drink not be allowed on DUI trials? Should married people not serve when spousal abuse is the charge of the day?

More precisely:Should women who are rape victims sit on rape trials?Should people who drink and drive be allowed on DUI cases?Should people who have been accused of abusing their SO serve on spousal abuse juries?

Originally posted by Fentras:A doctor would have a very biased stake in a malpractice case (insurence rates and all) - an occasional p2p user isn't nessisarily a "fuck the mafIAA" talking head from a tech news forum. It shouldn't be an immediate disqualifying factor if we are to believe the figures on its prevalence - or should women not be allowed to sit on rape trials? Should people who drink not be allowed on DUI trials? Should married people not serve when spousal abuse is the charge of the day?

It's not disqualifying, it's that the lawyers can choose to excuse any potential jurors that they want (they usually have a limited amount they can excuse, maybe only 2 or 3.) Ars can probably tell us which side excused which jurors, though they might not know why. Maybe one of the lawyers just got a bad vibe from them. Jury profiling and selection is a pretty good business (according to Grisham novels.)

Sorry, this is driving me nuts. Does anyone know how her name is pronounced? Whenever I read it, I want to say it as if I put too much J on my PBJ, and the J oozed out the side and now my hand is Jammie.

Originally posted by marmot_1:Sorry, this is driving me nuts. Does anyone know how her name is pronounced? Whenever I read it, I want to say it as if I put too much J on my PBJ, and the J oozed out the side and now my hand is Jammie.